*Editor’s Note* – This is a great example of ignorant blathering from those mired in the Left/Right false paradigm. I must ask if any of this information is about the dangers of glysophate found in “Roundup” used to genetically modify crop growth? It is not. It is about incomplete information and ignorance of facts, calling out of someone who has “no background in chemical research” by those who have no background in chemical research, and calling those concerned with the often-proven dangers of ingesting foods laced with glysophate as “leftist cancer claims.”

The claim is that the “Left” is “pursing politics over sound science” as if the Right isn’t or doesn’t do the same thing. Both sides always claim the high ground on “sound science” when it fits their political agendas.

The U.N. report in question deals with “cancer” and yet the concerns of what glysophate does to the rest of the body are being ignored through distractions of political bias between the Left and the Right.

Because we are so deeply manipulated by Left or Right we will actively disregard concerns over health issues from chemically induced foods that are designed to kill us because of political bias? Evidently.

I am not questioning that the U.N. and its players aren’t manipulating and generating propaganda “to advance a wider political agenda.” It’s what they do.However, one has to ask if the “Right” isn’t looking to “advance a wider political agenda” by attacking a claim simply because they believe it to be a Leftist claim of cancer. Is the Right so blindly committed to advancing the profits of big Pharma and big Corporate America, that killing innocent people should become the norm? Again, I say evidently.

Meanwhile, we all are getting sick and dying. Left/Right nonsense has now stooped to the level that politics rules over health.

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Anti-GMO Activist May Have Run Amok in World Health Organization Cancer Agency

Agency Rebuffs Congressional Investigation, Leading to Increased Calls to Cut U.S. Funding of Scandal-Ridden WHO

Global Public Health Too Important to Cede to Political Activists

Washington, DC – With the Trump Administration and congressional conservatives already skeptical of the United Nations’ use of American taxpayer dollars, there is growing concern that an affiliate of the U.N.’s World Health Organization (WHO) is pursing politics over sound science.

Not unlike allegations that demoted FBI official Peter Stzrok changed crucial language in a summary about Hillary Clinton’s email server, suspicion is growing about an anti-GMO activist with no background in chemical research who was brought in to advise the U.N.’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This activist may have played a role in the omission of crucial information — information that casts doubt on leftist cancer claims related to a popular weed-killer used to protect GMO crops.

“In this season of giving, congressional leaders should be reminded that being a good donor requires responsible stewardship,” said Jeff Stier, the director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Risk Assessment Division. “The U.S. is the largest contributor to the World Health Organization, yet the group – already mired in an array ofscandals – is now blatantly refusing to cooperate with a congressional committee charged with its oversight.”

Congress has recently begun asking oversight questions about potential misconduct at the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a WHO affiliate based in Lyon, France. But IARC has been snubbing its nose at requests for information. Now, the committee doing the investigation, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, is threatening to cut off federal funding until it gets answers. House leadership must recognize that this move comes not a moment too soon, and it must be prepared to back up the threat if necessary.

“IARC’s alarmist reports occasionally smack of propaganda intended to advance a wider political agenda,” Stier and Kelly point out.

In particular, they focus on increasing concern about an IARC report on glyphosate – a chemical found in the widely-used Roundup weed-killer produced by Monsanto – that backed cancer claims of critics of anti-GMO agriculture while ignoring plentiful research indicating little risk to human health. Like Stzrok’s alleged watering down of former FBI director James Comey’s report on Clinton, Reuters revealed that “significant changes and deletions” were made to the IARC report that removed “negative conclusion[s] about glyphosate leading to tumours.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency just released its own draft assessment on the risk of glyphosate to health and the environment for public comment.

“It seems that IARC has its own Peter Stzrok problem,” said Stier. “Questions are swirling around the role of Christopher Portier – a part-time employee with the Environmental Defense Fund who, despite having no background in chemical research, recommended that IARC evaluate glyphosate. Now on the payroll of plaintiffs’ lawyers suing on behalf of glyphosate ‘victims,’ Portier also served as an ‘invited specialist’ to the IARC group evaluating glyphosate.”

Stier and Kelly want to know what role Portier played in deletion of exculpatory evidence from the IARC report.

Congressman Lamar Smith, the chairman of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the U.S. House of Representatives, is setting the stage for a congressional hearing on the IARC’s glyphosate report and Portier’s influence over it. The agency, which has received $48 million in U.S. funding, has thus far snubbed Congressman Smith’s requests for information and potential witnesses for a hearing on the matter.

Congressional leadership must stand with the committee and state that global public health is too important to cede to scandal-ridden ideologues. This case illustrates again why WHO and IARC must be put on a regimen of tough love in the form of responsible stewardship.

(Natural News) A once-secret document detailing links between cell phones and brain cancer has been released by order of a California court. Entitled, “Cell Phones and Health,” the document was demanded in a lawsuit filed by Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health.<<<Read More>>>

An epigenome consists of a record of the chemical changes to the DNA and histone proteins of an organism; these changes can be passed down to an organism’s offspring via transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Changes to the epigenome can result in changes to the structure of chromatin and changes to the function of the genome. (wikipedia)

In the “2015 Lubbock Conference Session 4: Rob Sibka – Nephilim Genetics and the Rise of the X-Men” video, changes in genes via the epigenome are explained in short detail neat the time-frame of 104 minutes.

We have lost the war on cancer. At the beginning of the last century, one person in twenty would get cancer. In the 1940s it was one out of every sixteen people. In the 1970s it was one person out of ten. Today one person out of three gets cancer in the course of their life.

The cancer industry is probably the most prosperous business in the United States. In 2014, there will be an estimated 1,665,540 new cancer cases diagnosed and 585,720 cancer deaths in the US. $6 billion of tax-payer funds are cycled through various federal agencies for cancer research, such as the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The NCI states that the medical costs of cancer care are $125 billion, with a projected 39 percent increase to $173 billion by 2020.

The simple fact is that the cancer industry employs too many people and produces too much income to allow a cure to be found. All of the current research on cancer drugs is based on the premise that the cancer market will grow, not shrink.

John Thomas explains to us why the current cancer industry prospers while treating cancer, but cannot afford to cure it.

Evolved from Science, combining the word “psychology” and the word “science”, gives us the new word Psyence.

This new word is drawn from the main stream thoughts of the old science and plays an important role in the new science, now called Psyence. Much like “new knowledge”, new Psyence plays a major role in today’s new knowledge.

New Knowledge and New Psyence are synonymous, both in meaning and the affect on the psyche. Both New Knowledge and New Psyence require elements of the psyche to accept “new knowledge” and “psyence” as a platform of understanding the (new) world we live in, with no verifiable proof of either “new knowledge” or new science (psyence).

Having accepted “new knowledge” as fact based, it is possible to suppose that an attempt at landing on the moon was actually accomplished or that the “missing link(s)” will eventually appear as final proof of such “knowledge” and “psyence”. Obviously, landing man on the moon is still a controversial subject and evolution requires as much faith if not more, than men in space – where is the proof – the Science? Certainly, it is not found in composite images from NASA. Their origins are NAZI Germany.

A number of years ago, researching the HIV/AIDS “disease” the “science”, upheld as proof, was determined by answering just a few questions put together by the World Health Organization. Performed in third world countries and poverty stricken areas, all one needed to do to contract the so called HIV/AIDS virus was to simply answer a few questions. “You have Aids”….

In other research, some Cancers were attributed to a “nine out of ten false positives” blood test to “acquire” cancer. Currently, this new science and new knowledge is promoting much simpler blood tests to be given during routine examinations. A yearly physical with routine blood tests would be all that it would take to qualify for drug therapy.

In today’s news, the fight against cancer is likened to be a greater task than landing on the moon. If men were not put on the moon, then the attempt at the hoax was at least a monumental undertaking. If men did land on the moon there is no verifiable proof other than some composite images. Perhaps it is Psyence that put man on the moon.

What is New Knowledge (a phrase vice president Joe Biden used), then? A hoax. There is no New Knowledge. It is merely a term used upon the psyche and no different than Evolution. Both are impossible. Knowledge can be increased in the individual but there is no new knowledge. Even though the individual’s knowledge has increased, he is still learning what he has not heard (or learned) yet. If there truly is new knowledge, God will send it through His spirit. Until that happens, guard against “New Knowledge” of men and Sci-Fi-ence.

If HIV/AIDS is a hoax, and if Cancer is a hoax, then, what is behind this medical “phenomena”? In 2011, about 250 billion tax payer dollars. $250.000.000.000.000.

So apparently the holistic doctors who were all being killed in Florida had found out via their research that the nagalase enzyme protein is INTENTIONALLY being added to the population via immunizations. Nagalase STOPS vitamin D from binding to the Gc protein. This completely strips a human being’s body of it’s natural ability to kill cancer cells. Nagalase is a protein that’s also created by all cancer cells. This protein is also found in very high concentrations in autistic children. And they’re PUTTING it in our vaccines!! This prevents the body from utilizing the Vitamin D necessary to fight cancer and prevent autism. Nagalese disables the immune system. It’s also known to cause Type 2 Diabetes. So basically…they weren’t killing these doctors because they had found the cure to cancer or were successfully treating autism… they’re killing them because these Dr’s had been researching and had the evidence that the vaccines they’re injecting our precious children with are CAUSING our current cancer and autism crisis!! And that it’s obviously being done knowingly and on purpose! The doctors they killed in Florida had been collaborating and were getting ready to go public with the information.

National Center Risk Analysis Director Jeff Stier and Food Writer Julie Kelly are arguing in an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal that there may be a climate change-related political activism agenda behind the recent “eating meat causes cancer” scare.

Stier and Kelly argue that the cancer-causing risk of red meat described in the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) report has been exaggerated in many news stories.

“First, the report largely addresses only one cancer–colorectal–while making passing mention to other cancers, like stomach and prostate,” say Stier and Kelly in the op-ed. “Yet the evidence linking red meat and colorectal cancer is unconvincing. The authors write that ‘positive associations were seen with high versus low consumption of red meat in half of those studies’–hardly enough conclusive evidence to justify a stern cancer warning. The working group even admits in the same paper that ‘there is limited evidence for the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat’ and ‘no clear association was seen in several of the high quality studies.’ Despite this, the agency placed red meat in its second-highest risk category, alongside DDT and the human papillomavirus, HPV.”

“The case against processed meat is dubious, too,” say the authors. “According to the IARC report, each 50-gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. That might sound scary, but the absolute risk is what really matters. As an example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 2% of 40-year-olds will develop colorectal cancer over the next 30 years of their lives. What the IARC study suggests is a slightly higher rate–say, 2.4% over 30 years–for those 40-year-olds who tear through a 16-ounce package of bacon every week without fail.”

What’s worse, all this exaggeration may be in service of a political agenda. The IARC’s parent group, the World Health Organization (WHO), also issued a report calling for national governments to impose policies to deter the purchase of “high-GHG foods” (foods whose production emits a relatively large amount of greenhouse gases, such as meat). WHO recommends that governments impose high taxes on high-GHG foods so people will be less likely to buy them.

Is it a coincidence that the same group calling for high taxes on meat to deter its purchase has now issued a report linking meat to cancer?

Kelly and Stier conclude: “Hang on to your T-bones and sausages, folks.” The climate busybodies are after them.